The number of marriages decreased by 20.8% between 1992 and 2022, with a significant drop of 61% in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The proportion of adults married or in a civil partnership has also fallen below 50% for the first time in England and Wales, according to Office for National Statistics data. 

Not every couple decides to get married. You may still own property or assets together though while you are living together and if you were to separate, you may not agree how these assets are to be divided. In addition, you may have property or assets which you may want to keep separate and protect for the future.

We are increasingly advising our clients to enter into cohabitation agreements, as they show a clear intention of how the finances will be dealt with during the relationship and after. We hope the latter will not be necessary, but unfortunately it is best to cater for every eventuality. They are like pre-nuptial agreements, but for cohabitants.

If you wish to speak with someone regarding Cohabitation Agreements or advice on other family or matrimonial matters, please contact our compassionate and caring team for advice.

The post Cohabiting couples cautioned on legal implications as marriage rates continue to plummet appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Our expertise runs across the full breadth of family law and covers:

• Divorce and Separation
• Financial Settlements
• Cohabitation
• Pre-Nuptial Agreements
• Children
• Emergency Injunctions

Meet the team

Kate Booth

Our team is headed up by Solicitor Kate Booth. Kate joined BTTJ as Head of Department in October 2021. Kate qualified as a solicitor in 2006 and has specialised in family law throughout her career, at firms in Warwickshire and the West Midlands.

Kate deals with private family law cases including divorce and related financial matters, children, injunction and cohabitation issues. She also advises clients in connection with pre-nuptial and cohabitation agreements. Kate ensures that she is fully informed of developments in the law and has a thorough approach to the preparation of documents to ensure her clients’ interests are protected.

Kate works across our Coventry & Warwick offices.

Natasha Aspinall

Natasha qualified as a Solicitor in 2003. She joined us in our Family & Matrimonial department in November 2022, based out of our Balsall Common office.

Natasha joined us from a local Solicitors firm where she worked as Head of the Family Law department for 5 years.

She deals with a whole range of family matters whether they are straight forward or very complex.

Natasha is also a member of the Law Society‘s Family Law Panel. The Law Society developed the specialised Children Panel Accreditation Scheme for solicitors who specialise in this area. Membership depends on meeting the Law Society’s rigorous standards. 

Samantha Chater

Specialising in Matrimonial Law, Samantha qualified as a solicitor in 1996.  She has a wealth of experience in acting for clients in divorce, Children Act matters, the division of marital finances, injunctions where clients have been the victim of domestic violence and cohabitee disputes. Samantha also deals with pre-Nuptial agreements and special guardianship applications. Her years of experience have been recognised by her acquiring two solicitor accreditations.

Samantha has represented parents and children in complex Children Act Disputes.  Samantha has had one of her cases reported on when it went to the Court of Appeal on a significant issue as to whether an alleged perpetrator of abuse could cross-examine the alleged victim or whether the state should fund an advocate to do so.

Samantha is well known and well established in her field particularly for her professionalism, commitment, hard work and for being approachable.  Consequently, she enjoys a number of recommendations from previous clients and other professionals. Samantha works across our Coventry and Southam offices.

Nancy Tebbutt

Nancy joined BTTJ in November 2022 as Paralegal and was promoted to the position of Trainee Solicitor in September 2024. Nancy has continued her training within our Family & Matrimonial team.

Nancy started her LLB at Royal Holloway, University of London in September 2019 and graduated with first class honours in July 2022.

She started working towards her LPC LLM in September 2023, passing with distinction from BPP university.

Nancy is a member of the Warwickshire Law Society Warwickshire Junior Lawyers Division.

Our Solicitors also have dedicated support in their legal secretarial support team comprising of Dawn, Michelle and Jane.

As members of Resolution, our Family Team work in accordance with their Code of Practice to deal with matters in a constructive manner. Our solicitors work with you to provide support and explore all options including not only the court process, but other methods of dispute resolution to best suit your individual needs.

As a long-established family law department, we have close links with and immediate access to specialist barristers, financial advisors and accountants, all of whom we know to be professional, sympathetic and highly competent.  Our focus is always to ensure that your interests are protected.

We pride ourselves on being able to listen and understand precisely what you want, without making any assumptions of what we think you may need.

We have offices in Coventry, Warwick, Southam and Balsall Common and our solicitors work across the whole of the Coventry and Warwickshire region and beyond. Please contact us to see how we can assist.

The post Spotlight on our Family and Matrimonial Services appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

If you are buying a home with your partner you need to consider how you will own it. One of you may have contributed more to the deposit, or you might pay the mortgage or running costs in different shares. Without a Cohabitation Agreement or Declaration of Trust these contributions might not be reflected in the future.  

If you live in a home owned by your partner, then you are unlikely to have rights in it.  This could mean that if you separate you might not be entitled to stay in the home.

Unmarried partners will not be treated as each other’s next of kin in the event of one person’s death, and will not automatically inherit from their estate. 

It is possible for these issues to be addressed in a number of ways.  Cohabitation Agreements can set out financial arrangements during the relationship and deal with how assets will be split if you separate.  It is important to consider a Declaration of Trust when jointly owning a property. It is also important to make a Will to ensure that you wishes are given effect to on your death. 

Our Family and Matrimonial Team can help you to navigate these issues, contact us to see how we can help.

Article written by Head of Family & Matrimonial, Kate Booth.

The post Rights of Cohabitees appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Even couples who have been in a relationship for decades and share children and a home are potentially left with no rights unless they have a cohabitation agreement in place.

Kate Booth, Head of our Family and Matrimonial team notes that there are still a surprising number of people who were unaware of their vulnerable positions until it was too late.

People are approaching us for help at a time when they are already at one of the lowest points of their lives, but if they weren’t married and didn’t jointly own a property. when they were together, we can’t always offer them good news.

We advise unmarried couples living under the same roof to seek legal advice in the early days to draw up a cohabitation agreement potentially saving both parties further anger and pain if they break up.

A cohabitation agreement can be really helpful, and not just in case a couple separates.  It can outline how they own a property, and how they will contribute to the home.

The government recently rejected calls to reform Family Law in England and Wales to give better protection to the increasing number of cohabitees affected by break-ups.

Even those with children have no extra rights, meaning all they may be able to claim from a former partner is child maintenance.

Common law spouses as they are generally understood by the public are misconceptions. Living with a partner – no matter how long the relationship might last does not generate the rights that many people believe.

The common assumption – especially in cases where you have lived together a long time – even 20 or 30 years – and have children together – is that you have acquired rights against your former partner’s property, pension and income, but this is not the case.

It has caught a lot of people out over the years, and we have been approached by people who have found themselves in a difficult situation as a result.

You are very limited in what you can do as a former cohabitee without that legal agreement and with over 3.6 million people cohabiting in the UK it is important that awareness of this is raised.

It’s not very romantic and nobody likes to think about these things, but what we always advise clients who come to us for advice is to deal with it at the outset. Get a formal cohabitation agreement in place to give both parties peace of mind.

For more information on cohabitation agreements or any other Family & Matrimonial Law matter, please contact our friendly, compassionate team to see how we can assist.

The post Legal Agreements For Unmarried Partners appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Cohabitation agreements are becoming increasingly popular now, as less people are willing to take the plunge and marry. These agreements cater for various eventualities and simply means that everyone knows what they are getting themselves into without any surprises later.

I advise clients to be as thorough as possible when entering into these agreements. Include provision about who pays the mortgage and other outgoings each  month, include which items belong to who and what happens to them if the relationship breaks down and definitely state who will have what shares in the property where you live. Where applicable, we can include child arrangements into the agreement, so should the relationship breakdown, each parent knows their continuing responsibility towards that child, financially and in respect of care.

Obviously it is better to be as open and honest when discussing these issues. It means the cohabitation agreement will be worth the paper it is written on and will not result in an early breakdown of the relationship.

I advise clients to exchange documents showing all assets and income, including pensions, property, savings and liabilities.  Each of you should take independent legal advice before completing the agreement. I can assist with every step of the process, from exchange of documents to completion.

Once negotiations have taken place the agreement will be recorded and signed. There is then a legally binding document which you have both entered into.

If you need any advice on cohabitation agreements please call Family law specialist, Samantha Chater on 02476 531532, or email samantha.chater@bttj.com.

The post Do I Need a Cohabitation Agreement? appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Legally, if the house is in both parties’ names, they both hold the legal title to it. The issue arises in relation to the ‘beneficial interest’ in the house, the value, when parties have bought a house together but have not contributed equally, either by way of a deposit, mortgage payments or the cost of property improvements.

Where this has happened, the prospect of the value of the house simply being divided 50/50 can seem very unfair, especially against the background of ill feeling that so often accompanies separation. However, in cases where there have been unequal contributions such as where one party pays the deposit, whilst the other spends an equal amount on their holiday, to not separate the value 50/50 may also produce an unfair result.

What is important is what the parties intended the division of the value to be, though how this is to be identified in the absence of an express agreement is not easy.

The intention of the parties

Couples will often not set out, in clear terms, at the beginning of a relationship exactly what they do intend the position to be regarding the beneficial ownership of a property purchased together. The Court must therefore figure out what the parties intended.

Jones v Kernott

In this case, the parties met in 1981 and had two children. They purchased a house in 1985 in their joint names. They paid £30,000 with a despoit of £6000 from the sale proceeds of Ms Jones’ previous home. The mortgage and upkeep on the house was shared between them. In 1986, they jointly took out a loan of £2000 for an extension, on which Mr Kernott did some of the work himself. The trial judge found that this extension probably enhanced the value of the property by about 50% to £44,000.

Mr Kernott moved out of the property in 1993. Ms Jones remained with the children and paid all of the household expenses herself. Mr Kernott made no further contribution towards the purchase of the property and, in 1996, he bought his own house by cashing in a joint life insurance policy for the deposit, and by making mortgage payments. The Court found he would have been unable to do this had he been making any contribution towards the mortgage on the former family home.

Over the years, the value of the former family home increased and in 2006 Mr Kernott indicated that he wished to claim a beneficial share in it. In response, Ms Jones applied for a declaration under section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 that she owned the entire beneficial interest in the property. Ms Jones’ position was that in the 14 and a half years following the seperation, there was evidence that their intentions had changed. Mr Kernott had bought his own house and ceased to make contributions to Ms Jones. By 2008 the property was valued at £245,000.

What the Court found

The Supreme Court concluded that the following principles should be applied where a family home is bought by a cohabiting couple in joint names with both responsible for the mortgage, but without any express agreement as to how the value of the property should be divided upon seperation;

1. The starting point is that equity follows the law and, as they are joint legal owners, they jointly own the property 50/50.

1. That position can be challenged by showing that (a) the parties intended something different when they bought the property, or (b) that they later intended that their ownership of the property would change.

1. The intention of the parties can be deduced from their words or conduct.

1. In cases where it is clear that (a) the parties did not intend joint ownership at the point the property was first purchased, or, if they did, (b) had changed their minds (but it is not possible to deduce what their actual intention was) the Court will award each party the share of the property that it considers fair. This it will do by considering the whole course of dealing between the parties.

1. Each case will turn on its own facts, and the financial contribution of each party is one of many factors the Court must consider.

The Court found that whilst the starting point should be joint and equal ownership of the property as it was held in joint names, in this case, because of the parties’ conduct, that intention had changed. Once Mr Kernott had purchased a new home, his interest in the former family home was established. He maintained his new home whilst Ms Jones maintained the former family home. The intention was therefore that Ms Jones would have the sole benefit of any gain in that home and Mr Kernott would have the sole benefit of any gain in his new home. On that basis, the division made by the trial judge, 90/10 in favour of Ms Jones, would be appropriate in all the circumstances.

Conclusion

This case illustrates the principles the Court will follow and the correct approach. Where the property is in joint names, the starting point will always be that the parties are equal joint owners. If words or conduct at the time of the purchase, or later, before the property is sold, indicates something to the contrary, then the Courts may divide the interest differently. This is something the party seeking a greater share will have to satisfy the Court of, and it will not be an easy burden to discharge.

The post Unmarried couples and property; Who owns what? appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.